Hi AK400 Can't you navigate to a Mr Smug site. If you like we will give you directions you cannot seem to take the hint that you are on the wrong site. This is the Andy Murray forum not Mr Smug's or are you lonely because no one on Mr Smug's website. Or is it that you like Andy but are afraid to admit it.

@littlebuddha,I fear when Roger does hang up his racquet which is going to be soon. AK400 may have a little trouble letting go, he might need some sort of help 'adjusting' to the real world afterwards. You know of the white coat variety.

ak400 I can't disagree that Federer can just about blow anyone off the court but on this site we are all interested in Andy's game and I think we all believe the next time both men meet in a GS Murray can beat Roger. Now you might not believe that but don't belittle Murray's achievement's and the threat he poses to your man.

I hope you stick around to offer an outside view but please look at facts objectively and stop relating Fed in every sentence.

I have met a lot of Federer fans in my young life and most really don't know the technical aspect of the game just the end product basically glory hunters. By the sounds if ak400 he/she does only look at Fed's performances from a results stand point.

Surely. Federer won 16 Slams and for that reason, ak400 will always win the debate even if he is wrong and even if his posts make little sense most of the time. That’s why he is here not because he is a “tennis fan”. A real fan of tennis wouldn’t deliberately post pictures in the middle of an argument that didn’t warrant in the first place.

You don’t have to prove him wrong because he doesn’t and shouldn’t matter.

I did waste my time with him at first I admit but later I realized he’s here only for his own amusement and he just can’t be reasoned with like most of the Federer fans.

You know, nothing annoys your enemy more when you avoid them – that’s what they say.

I agree Craigh,It's understandable as Federer is the 16 slam wonder, But you only have to scrape the surface a little to see there's more to it than that.You get some nice Fed fans too however and some terrible Nadal ones also as they are the biggest stars and shall attract all kinds of people.But I have noticed a real sense of arrogance in many Fed fans that is really off putting and an almost fundamentalist disregard for reality in the worst ones.'Fan' is short for FANatic after all.

You're not getting it AK400,Murray did freeze and he did under perform. Twice.And how can you say he had a better chance against last years Novak than against Roger who hasn't won a slam since? I doubt even Roger is that delusional, he's certainly not stupid enough to say it publicly.You've said it yourself here about Murrays propensity to crumble in slam finals. Part of that crumbling is happening before he gets on court resulting in a very defensive non proactive style of play when he does and for the record, Murray normally makes more winners and is away from the baseline more often than both Nadal and Djokovic. I don't care whether it's perceived as 'lame excuse' by you. It doesn't change the observation I was making which the truth. It can be looked at statistically also but it was obvious to absolutely everyone excepting the most extreme triumphalistic Federer fans. I'm not doing it to diminish Rogers win either,A win is a win when all is said and done, on that day he probably would have won anyway. Although I am certain it is a win he would not have got had Murray not taken Nadal out in the quarters.Also a 'lame excuse' in my book is when you suggest that the reason Nadal so clearly dominates Roger is due to Rafa being left handed, ha-ha.Maybe he's just a better player, certainly Roger has failed to adapt to Nadal's challenge in all this time.What else, oh yes the whole Rafa taking 5 sets to beat Roger, you do know he took 5 hours to beat Verdasco just before dont you?Oh but Roger 'played terrible' in the fifth?Isn't that what you would class as a 'lame excuse' AK?Under the circumstance I'm afraid I would have to as well, as he was better rested and should have been able to sustain his level for a final set, maybe he was simply dominated by Nadal by that time and folded, again.Although I will say that when Federer lost against Del Potro at the USO... well that was on his racquet that time but he somehow found a way to lose. You have this strange way of posting as if everything is frozen in time.I think it's common trait for Rogers fans as that's where his glory days are to be found.The past might be frozen (although perspective on the past isn't) but the future is not.Murray has time, Del Potro has time, Federer has less.So I doubt Murray would also give up all of his prior achievements just to be a one slam wonder. Which may yet happen to Delpo, who has yet to win a masters title (again indicating that the stars aligned for him in NY), but I hope it doesn't. He was an exception however and a bit lucky getting one in early. But it ain't over yet. Murray shall get his when he's ready. Delpo will get his next one when hes ready too, as lightening rarely strikes twice in sport and one usually has to be more than lucky & reasonably well prepared.I suppose you think that Ferrero will go down like Delpo as a better player than Murray if he retired tomorrow as he's been Number 1 and won a slam also? I'm sorry but that is a crass argument and simply not the truth.And I do hope for your sake that you are not going to try and tell any of us here that the early Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero etc era was in any way comparable to the other eras I outlined because that's just silly and really you're embarrassing yourself to even try.Sampras = Roddick etc, give me a break.It was a weak era because there was only one decent player competing with no competition and that is why he cleaned up. Again this is obvious stuff.

The propblem with your argument is you purely going on hindsight. Of course if Murray had to play Novak in the Aussie Open final now that would not be a good draw and Roger would never say it was.

But last year before he went on to have an amazing run things were quite different. Novak had lost his last 3 matches to Murray and had only won one major before Nadal and Federer were both eliminated so it was a decent draw for Murray and certainly a much better chance than if he had, had to play Federer yet again you know a guy who had crushed him in his previous 2 major finals.

Sure Roger playing bad in the 5th against Rafa was a poor showing but its hard to compare that to Murray because Roger has won 16 majors therefore we know what his best form in a major is like and we know what to compare it to.

Murray has been straight setted in all 3 of his major finals, so whether he froze or whether he is simply not good enough to get over that final hurdle.

I never said that Roddick is equal to Sampras or even hinted I did say that Roddick is a great player and it is a testement to Roger's domination that he is only going to end up with 1 major.

Of course time does not stand still and Murray does have some time left of course and for the record I think he may well have a better career than Del Po when they both retire, but if they did both stop today Del Potro has had the better career because he has wona major.

Of course Ferrero has had a better career so far than Murray if you think otherwise you are deluded not only was he 1 in the world (rankings alone do not mean much without titles) but he has made the same amount of slam finals as Murray and he has actually managed to win one of them (French Open 2003).

Sampras who is one of the greats of all time even said that, Federer has a forehand as good as his better backhand and better from the baseline, while I agree that Sampras would have tested Roger if both played at their prime, I also feel that Roger's dominance has stopped many talented players from becoming multiple grand slam winners like they were capable of becoming.

I have met a lot of Federer fans in my young life and most really don't know the technical aspect of the game just the end product basically glory hunters. By the sounds if ak400 he/she does only look at Fed's performances from a results stand point.

Results are important yes but so is the way Roger is playing to me, when he lost US Open 2011 that loss was hard to take but, I was proud in knowing that Roger had beaten and then again come close than anyone else to beating Novak in a major plus he had been part of one of the best matches of the year.

Sometimes when someone has a season like Djokovic has last year you have to say, congratulations and just hope your guy can tip the balance back in his favour.

I have been a fan of Roger since I first saw him play in 1998 Basel against Agassi he lost but I loved the way he played and his flair and followed him from that moment on. I hoped he would have a great career and thought he could, but even if he had the career of say a Murray or a Ferrer someone like that who hasn't won one of the big ones I would still support him.

I don't understand why people like ak400 think results are the be all and end all. Watching Andy win or lose is always a joy as even during some abject performances he can produce a moment of sheer genius that leaves you both in wonderment and angry at the same time getting himself 8 feet behind the baseline.But never dull.